Victory! Illinois fails to redefine marriage

Those who want to eliminate the institution of marriage (their words, not mine) have their sights set on the heartland of America. After successfully redefining marriage in New England, progressives are taking their fight to the Midwest.

Realizing that they have a pretty low batting average when it comes to redefining marriage at the ballot box, anti-marriage activists are forcing career-conscience state legislators to grant them their wishes.

Gay Pride Fails in Illinois

Although gay marriage is often said to be inevitable, marriage redefiners were handed an embarrassing defeat last week. On Friday, the Illinois General Assembly cancelled a vote on a bill that would have allowed couples anatomically incapable of bearing children to participate in the institution of marriage.

Even though Democrats control the Governor’s office and possess supermajorities in the Illinois state legislature, history seemed to be working against them as they unsuccessfully convinced their fellow Democrats to support the notion of genderless marriage.

Nevertheless, Illinois State Representative Greg Harris – the bill’s lead sponsor – tearfully but confidently assured the public that when the Assembly reconvenes later this year, “equal marriage will…be a reality in Illinois.”

Efforts to redefine marriage along gender neutral lines are also taking root in the state of Michigan. Just last week, Senate Democrats introduced legislation that, according to Democratic State Representative Brandon Dillon – a Catholic – would usher in an era of “marriage equality.”

Although Democrats are in the minority in Michigan’s House and Senate, and won’t be in control of those legislative bodies for the foreseeable future, it’s clear that liberals think Michiganders can be tricked into supporting an institution that necessarily denies children the opportunity of being raised by their mom and dad.

Given the growing animosity towards the traditional understanding of marriage and given the full frontal attacks its opponents are about to unleash on it, I think quoting On Freemasonry and Naturalism, an encyclical written in 1884 by Pope Leo XIII, is most appropriate:

The race of man, after its miserable fall from God…separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other for those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth.

The one is the kingdom of God on earth…The other is the kingdom of Satan.

Pope Leo XIII

At every period of time each has been in conflict with the other.

At this period, however… [the Church’s enemies] are now boldly rising up against God Himself. They are planning the destruction of holy Church publicly and openly, and this with the set purpose of utterly despoiling the nations of Christendom.

It is Our office to point out the danger, to mark who are the adversaries and to the best of Our power to make head against their plans and devices.

Their ultimate purpose [is] the utter overthrow of that religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced.

They deny that anything has been taught by God…[they believe] that the multitude should be satiated with boundless license.

[They believe] that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can be rightly revoked by the will of those who made them.

Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract – that is, into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite.

As Pope Leo mentions, we have to continue calling out the adversaries of the Catholic Church. We have to prepare ourselves for their sly and cunning words. We have to be ready when they target Illinois and Michigan later this year. Surely this voting debacle in Illinois is a setback for them, but they won’t give up that easy. And neither can we.


Categories:Breaking News Marriage Politics

  • MichaEl

    What a great victory! Make no mistake, as more Conservatives exodus the Democrat Party (you remember, the bunch with “We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples.” in their platform) the Victories will only grow!

  • Noel A Hyde

    The silent majority has had enough. They know what the homosexual community wants is a special privilege that nobody else has, just for them by changing the definition of a word that is very important to society. Just like everyone else, homosexuals have the ability to marry anyone they want with certain universal exceptions like other peoples’ spouses, under aged children, their sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, and people of the same gender. Over the years the definitions of words have been modified slightly to enlarge their meanings, but I know of no serious example where a definition has been changed to the opposite of the original meaning. If you change definitions to have two mothers or two dads, then why not have an Uncle Sara and Aunt Rudy – or my sister Fred and my brother Melissa? Can my nephew be a girl or my niece a boy? To start this harmful and intellectually dishonest practice of changing the definition of words to satisfy a very minority position is a total sham and, yes, should not be tolerated.

    • SLCMLC

      Not sure about the “majority” part of your comment considering there was a recent poll that showed 52-41 support for gay marriage. Or how “silent” the anti-gay marriage view is considering you know, we’re referring to an article published on a public website.

      But really, this is besides the point…I’m not interested in debating the merits of gay marriage because nothing anyone can say will change your mind and that’s totally fair and I respect that. What I continue to emphasize is that divisive articles like this do NOT advance your agenda and just damage the credibility of other socially conservative views with many Americans who are open to listening.

      You can choose to say I’m wrong here and that’s totally cool. But show this article to some of those 52% who oppose it and see if you get anywhere. They probably won’t enjoy the implication that supporting gay marriage means wanting to destroy the institution (as the author basically states) and after reading this article they will not be likely to hear you out on other topics like abortion, the death penalty, etc.

    • Russell

      That is truly some twisted “logic.”

  • Mary

    I cannot agree with SLCMLC – this is an important battle and this article very good. Someone finally said no to the gay marriage agenda. It’s a start as far as I’m concerned and we should be grateful for the coalition that stopped them. As for infertile couples, infertile couples (male and female) have been known to conceive. And maybe American gay activists haven’t said they are out to destroy marriage but I bet they would agree with everything this woman said. There are no finite resources to fight the good fight, nothing is impossible to God.

    • SLCMLC

      Thanks for replying even though we disagree. Infertile couples can not conceive, otherwise they wouldn’t be infertile. I understand the point you’re trying to make but for some heterosexuals it is literally as impossible to conceive as it is for homosexuals. And the woman does not speak for gay marriage activists…I know this because their lawyers (including Ted Olson who is hardly a liberal secularist) spent two days arguing in front of the Supreme Court and of course never even came close to broaching the subject of eliminating marriage. I’d rather have the author quote these arguments instead of the ramblings of someone not even in this country.

      I’m simply trying to come at this from a practical point of view…articles like this do nothing to help advance a socially conservative cause and only serve to further divide us all. Even if you believe in infinite resources to fight the good fight, I truly believe negative articles like this (and others I have seen on this site) are a step in the wrong direction in that fight.

  • cruise

    SLCMLS – Procreation is the key to marriage. Go back and review your basic college philosophy course to learn the difference between potential and actual.

    • SLCMLC

      Of course procreation is a key factor in marriage. But there are plenty of heterosexuals (much more I think than anyone might realize) who do not have the potential to procreate for “anatomical” reasons. Lumping them into the gay marriage debate (which the author implicitly does) is not fair to them.

      • Russell

        Not only are there plenty of heterosexuals who CAN’T reproduce, there are also those that SHOULDN’T reproduce. After all, those kids that everyone is afraid the gays will adopt and indoctrinate, didn’t fly in with the last stork. There are some pretty irresponsible straight folks who are NOT all about engagements, weddings, settling down and raising 10 or 12 good Catholic children… their hormones are working and it’s about the moment and BAM, another unwanted child.
        Now we could discuss contraception which might lead to less orphanages and probably many less abortions, but that’s discussion for another day.

  • Tom

    SLCMLC – all good points. However, I would say that regardless of what happens in our culture, never give up on backing Truth.

    • SLCMLC

      Thanks Tom. Of course, I am not advocating that people stop supporting something they think is right just because it is unpopular. I just think there are finite political resources (time, money, or even how much you can convince the other side to listen) and perhaps they shouldn’t be used on this specific topic.


    Considering six states have made gay marriage legal in the last year I’m not sure now is the time for a victory lap (especially with an important SCOTUS decision looming). And I think it’s pretty intellectually dishonest to use a quote from one person (who is not even involved in the US fight for gay marriage) about trying to destroy the institution of marriage when of course a vast, vast majority of gay marriage advocates of course disagree. Furthermore, I don’t understand the fixation people have about mentioning “incapable of bearing children” when of course we would NEVER dream of denying the right to marry to infertile couples. Not trying to use “sly and cunning” words here, just pointing out some facts.

    I get that you feel strongly about this but it might be time to move on and realize this is a losing issue. Let’s all work together to get divorce rates down, to make sure kids are raised in happy and loving households, and that we’re all teaching children the basic morality of kindness and serving others.

    There are certainly many social issues where I think Catholics should continue to fight the good fight even if it’s unpopular. Gay marriage isn’t one of them in my humble opinion.

    • Kevin

      Every sin damages everyone and everything in the universe. You either believe that’s true or you believe that’s false.

      • SLCMLC

        I’m not saying anyone should sacrifice their principles. I’m merely pointing out there are finite resources to fight the good fight.

        And I can assure you, when a “moderate” person who is fine with marriage equality but is open to other socially conservative positions (especially the pro-life side) reads an article like this, their eyes kind of glaze over and aren’t going to listen to other things the author says. Using one extreme quote to say gay marriage activists want to destroy marriage really doesn’t do any good. Nor does basically explicitly stating that procreation is a key necessity for marriage.

        • Candace

          God is not finite so why would His resources (truth and justice) born through His people be finite. Christ was not a fence sitter, and he never gave in to the Pharisees. He spoke truth and let the chips fall where they may. We are to be the Church Militant and called to be martyrs if necessary.

        • Erin

          Married couples are asked “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” Infertility problems are different from, as the author stated, being “anatomically incapable,” as it would be with two men or two women. There is not even a slight possibility that two people of the same sex could ever conceive a child. It is against Natural Law. Humanae Vitae clearly states: “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare parents.” So, I disagree with you that procreation is not a “key necessity” for marriage. Marriage is meant to produce and protect children. Couples are supposed to be open to fertility. If they cannot because of infertility, that is different from being of the same sex and therefore, incapable of producing children.

          • SLCMLC

            I respectfully disagree. Simply put, many heterosexual couples are 100% incapable of ever having children for reasons related to their anatomy. I have known many of these couples and I think, gay marriage debate aside, articles like these implicitly insult these couples and their marriages (even if this is not the intention). This is all part of my larger point that articles like this are not part of a constructive debate in my opinion. They only serve to divide us more instead of finding common ground. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post, I hope I have helped advance the debate in a constructive fashion!

          • Veronica

            That part of the marriage rites are noted as optional. I’ve been at hundreds of catholic weddings and have heard that line included only once that I remember. The vast majority of marriage vows (and by vast I mean 99%) don’t mention procreation.

          • Russell

            Catholic couples are asked the question you mention.
            What about the several billion other people on this planet who are NOT Catholic? Do we as Catholics get to dictate to them or mandate how and under what circumstances they may marry? Can’t happen.

    • escape

      our fight as Catholics should be a natural one not an artificial fight for artificial thing, the fought for true definition of marriage is in right direction because it was ordained by God himself, and neither Obama nor you where there in the beginning ,if we fail to do so, the future shall hold us responsible and the consequences shall fall on our unborn children. the author is very right in all his assumption , gay marriages denied children the right and joy of true parents and a joyful home, if i am one them ,i will feel like disappearing in this sinful world



Receive our updates via email.